Genesis 1 & 2 ?

by massigusoni



The supposed ‘conflicting’ 2 accounts of creation in Genesis might well be better understood from the perspective of one account, extended, and congruous in scope.

My intention here is neither to confirm, nor negate the veracity of the Genesis account. It is to explain what I view as “what is being said”. 

The scope of the Genesis creation account given in the first two chapters of that book covers vast ideas: which are alluded to very accurately in our translations; but are emphatically portrayed in the Hebrew language version.

As you will come to see, they display an obvious superiority of ‘Ha’Adam’, the male progenitor in Genesis 2; over and above, ‘Adam’, the male and female progenitors portrayed in Genesis one.

This ‘racial superiority’, of ‘Ha’Adam’; who is the ultimate ancestor of the Jew, reveals that the notion of such a superior status is inherent all the way back to the Genesis of their ‘first man’; and did not begin with Abraham, as is usually supposed.

We will be covering many points of comparison and contrast in our investigation; therefore, that you may clearly see these points I will be emphasizing, the near necessity of having the accounts readily presented in their context before you arises.

I suggest that you refer to the account in context as we proceed. Any translation will be satisfactory, and if perhaps unavailable or inconvenient, can be handily supplied by simply opening a “new tab” in your browser here –

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV

and here –

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV

Introductory to our inquiry, before proceeding, some explanation as to how this line of inquiry originated should be understood. I am neither a linguist, nor Hebrew fluent.


The striking and widely unknown statements which in their entirety define exactly ‘what’ the first two chapters of Genesis truly ‘say’; were researched by means of Concordance and Lexicon.

The procedure in such a venture is simple, yet time consuming, and extensive noting is required. The King James Version translation was used, not for it’s purported inerancy; but, because nearly all extant concordances and lexicons are ‘coded’ with reference to it.


Using any other version adds one more step to the process. You must first, if using another version, find it’s equivalent in the King James ‘code book’ first, and then proceed from there.


‘Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible’, is the primary translation tool that I have used. ‘Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon’ was also used in cross referencing.


These volumes avail one the means to locate any word in the King James Version, trace it back to the original word in Hebrew, for which a dictionary of original definitions is provided in the same volume.
In so doing, the original ‘sense’ interned and displayed, before the translator’s interpolation, can be apprehended.


For example; where, our English translation says in Genesis 1, ” Let us make man in our image and likeness”, the emphatic emphasis in the Hebrew original includes, “endowed with the potential to both render and receive worship”.

This is lost completely in the English Version, and it’s literary importance is profound. It declares an inherent quality in created man which the English Version ignores; and which the ultimate perversion of would be narcissistic self worship, a tendency of epidemic proportion extant abroad in our day.

1. The First Two Chapters of Genesis Approached :

In beginning our research, some preparatory understanding is prerequisite.

The striking, and glaring, and most important of facts to be understood is; there are NO chapters and verses in the original documents !

The introduction of ‘chapters’ and ‘verses’; which, could be understood as the overlay of chapter and verse divisions upon them, came at a later time. https://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html
The importance of this fact is so profound that it must be reiterated, there were NO chapter and verse divisions in the original documents.

For this reason, such emendations are useless as guides to interpretation !

Therefore, to perceive the accurate interpretive sense of the Genesis account, it MUST be comprehended as; one, continuous, discourse.

That is the sense in which it was set down, and to be understood aside from this means, or in any other fashion, MUST introduce error into it’s interpretation.

Having brought to light the fact; that, there were never, properly speaking, any such literary works originally written as Genesis 1, and Genesis 2, we may now adjust our sense of understanding concerning the creation account of the Hebrews.

( The chapters of scripture were introduced as ‘reference helps’; and, so we will be using them from only that perspective. From the opening, “In The Beginning”, to it’s closing, “In Egypt”, Genesis is one continuous account. Each word, sentence, paragraph, and portion of the book can only be understood contextually. )

2. The Creation :

Commencing with our study of creation as one continuous narrative will further dispel the myth of two creation accounts.

The primary, and easily observable fact before our eyes, is that the portion of the narrative rendered under the superimposed heading, Genesis 2, is not a creation account at all.

It tells us nothing, and absolutely nothing of creation ! It rests heavily upon the idea of the pre-existing conditions set forth in that section of the continuous narrative under the superimposed heading of Genesis 1.
It gives us no clue to the origins of sky, sea, animals, vegetation, animals, fish, birds or, man. For that matter why should it? It is not a second account of creation.

It is however our introduction to a second species of ‘MAN’; and as such is concerned with nothing other than he, his unique habitat, and the differing circumstances of his origin !

We will be comparing, and contrasting, these two separate species of man very closely. Introductory to this, let us look at the word ‘Adam’.

Our initial familiarity with the word ‘Adam’ tends to our assuming it to be the name of the ‘first man’.

There are those among us so named today, and it is easily convoluted to meaning ‘a name’.

“Adam” is the Hebrew equivalent of our English “Mankind”. It is exactly that, and nothing more, or less. The first use of this term is given to us in that portion of the narrative under the reference of Genesis 1-26. ” Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness”. It is general in it’s application, having no literary marks to note of either distinction, or exception, as such, here.

However, arriving at the place in our narrative under the reference of Genesis 2-7, where we read, “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”; there, are in this instance, in the Hebrew rendering the ‘article’ and the ‘particle’ included.

These clearly indicate distinction and exception. They declare emphatically, in Hebrew sense, and idea, that this ‘man’ is not related to that ‘man’ in any way, shape, or form.

The addition of the article, (The) to the word man (Adam) translates in sense to THE Man. The addition of the particle ( ‘ ) translates in sense to The MAN. Combined, they give us in sense “THE MAN” !

3. The Creation :

It would be constructive at this juncture to read that portion of the creation narrative under the reference given as Genesis 1, for a cursory familiarization. We will be addressing points from it in detail as we proceed.
The general progression in the narrative is; from darkness and ‘void’, to light, then time (day and night), then sky, then sea, then land, then primordial vegetation (the wilds).

Following we have the introduction of the celestial orbs; then flying life and aquatic life, (both sourced from the waters).

The next creative impulse introduces the creatures on land, (sourced out of the earth).

Finally we arrive to the last character introduced, completing the primordial creation, mankind.

We have arrived, for our purpose, to that place where we will begin to look with a keenly scrutinizing, and analytical eye, upon what details are here disclosed.

We have here to seen the installation, through progression, of the primordial world. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate any inclination of the creation, at this time, as being other than ‘primordial’. It is “The Wilds” and should importantly be understood as such.

As we will be spotlighting important aspects concerning the first impetus of mankind in this primordial world, the appropriate portion of the creation narrative is reproduced entirely, with reference marks, for your own convenience, we will be referring back to it as we proceed.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

I am strongly inclined to address the subjects I have chosen here in their converse order, and so will proceed along those lines.

“And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.”. There is much debate and conjecture concerning the duration, or length of the days, in the Genesis account.

Given the document’s own internal evidence, the most popular notion of the days in Genesis being a 24 hour solar day, is also the most inconsistent.

The opening of the narrative tells of the first creative impulse as being the installation of ‘light’. This is followed by the separation of light from darkness. The light is given the term ‘day’, and the darkness allocated ‘night’.

These acts end with the declaration that, ‘And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”
There yet being no celestial orbs by which time is kept, this must allude to a differing concept of time.

Therefore, morning and evening must also refer to something other than our sunrise and sunset.

The waxing and subsequent waning of creative impulse is most likely the intended idea; however, dogmatists would strongly contest the notion.

Our next point of consideration is the sustenance provided for primordial man according to the Genesis narrative. Genesis 1-29 states that they are given freely every seed bearing plant on the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.

This is the sustenance for both primordial man and beast alike.

Thus far we are given a picture of man and beast living in the wild, sustained by like nourishment. The details of this portion that should be keenly noted are; that, no tree, or plant, is withheld from primordial man as nourishment. This will become an important contrast when we come to the consideration of ‘the forbidden fruit’, the second human species, and the habitat.

We must also note here the conspicuous absence in any reference to cultivation. These are the wilds, and they are the primordial ‘gatherers’ of mankind.

The portion of the Genesis account referenced as Genesis 1-27 will be next in our research.

We have seen thus far, that the creation of this primordial species of man occurs during the time frame designated the 6th day. The idea we gather of this primordial mankind is gathered from the dominion they are given. The creation account depicts them of being, in some aspect, and by some agency, of a higher order than the beasts that co-habit with them in the environment.

We have already stated earlier that the idea inherent in the Hebrew rendering of ‘in our image and likeness’ emphatically shows the idea of being endowed with the potential to render and receive worship”.

The important aspect that should be understood in the creation of primordial man, in understanding what the account says about their creation in this ‘sixth day’, is that they are created together. Male and female created he them.

They are created, male and the female, together simultaneously. There is no indication here of one being created before the other, in any order.

The plural here remains ambiguous, ‘them’, and as such, may refer to two, or many. But, as the context is referencing ‘mankind’ the more correct application of the plural must therefore apply to the many; and that being the case, what is being described here is numerous ‘pairs’ or couples, being generated over a vast spectrum.

Again, here the dogmatists would contend vigorously. However, in the creation accounts of Polynesian peoples, (still very close to their gatherer roots) this is emphatically stated as being the way the earth was populated.

In conclusion to our observations thus far, concerning the first people, the creation account in Genesis thus far, pictures a primordial world inhabited by both animals and humans. It is primordial in aspect, the wilds, with no idea of cultivation present; and, those humans are gatherers.

4. The Habitat :

Between the creation of the primordial world, and the next creative impulse in the narrative, there is an interlude indicative of a ‘passing of time’, and it is marked, “The seventh day”. This respite wherein no creative impulse is exerted is especially placed here, to so indicate that the primordial world, then complete, remained just so over some extended duration of time.

Yet, according to the Genesis account, these circumstances would not endure.

We will now examine that portion of the Hebrew Genesis account which is referenced as Genesis 2.
Again we recognize that there are no chapters or verse indications in the original account. Such references must therefore be discarded in considering the accounts meaning, it’s “interpretation”; additionally the treatise must therefore be viewed as a continuous progression.

There are however many logical and grammatical shifts in subject, and thought, that occur throughout the Genesis creation account.

Regrettably, the chapter and verse references not only rarely coincide with such shifts, but more often than not, conflict with them, lending to erroneous ideas in meaning.

The first logical and grammatical indication in the Genesis account is obvious, and striking. The mischief due to the erroneously placed chapter brake will become obvious as well once the rules of grammar are applied in weight over the superimposed referencing system.

The grammatical conclusion of the primordial creation account is found in what is referenced as Genesis 2-4, and states, ” This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

This is an emphatically concluding statement in the account of the creation of the primordial world. It says ‘finished here’.

To wrestle it into another meaning renders it grammatical nonsense.

To believe that it is the introductory to what follows is to believe in two contradictory accounts.

From this verse we proceed onto a whole new idea, a whole new train of thought; and the creation of another family of mankind.

The opening words in our new subject being introduced are found in the portion of the creation account referenced as Genesis 2- 5.

Attention to the grammar in the conclusion of our last idea, and the grammar in this introduction to a new subject are obvious, and the rules of grammar must command over the rules of notion.

It states; ” 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

This rendering is taken from the NIV Version translation, and is grossly misleading in it’s content.

Another version which is friendlier to the Hebrew meaning is Young’s Literal Translation, which renders this verse, ” and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprout, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, 6and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground. 7And Jehovah God formeth the man — dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.

It is imperative to compare and contrast things that have been said before, with those things being said here; and, in so doing abstain from any assuming or conjecture, but taking the words at their own grammatical value.
The first contrast we shall view in our query is the vegetation mentioned here. It is emphatically categorized in the Hebrew rendition. In some translation it is noteworthy, and in others easily glossed over.

It is delineated in close proximity to it’s Hebrew equivalent in the Young’s Literal Translation, and should be meticulously and conspicuously understood as “of the field”.

This does not presume to state there was no vegetation. What is does emphatically indicate is, there is no cultivated vegetation. That is what the qualifying suffixation “of the field” means.

Then we are given the reason why there is no cultivated vegetation.” for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, 6and a mist goeth up from the earth, and hath watered the whole face of the ground.”

Let’s, for clarity sake take these statements in their converse order, and thoughtfully evaluate their scope. We have before been given the picture of a wild primordial world, inhabited by gatherers.

It’s aspect is now expanded here to include it’s steamy atmosphere, by which the primordial wilds are watered.


But, as these of mankind existing, are gatherers, and have been relegated to that destiny, there is then no “man to serve the ground”.

This portion of the creation account does not intend to imply that there are none of mankind in existence. There are many of mankind living on the primordial earth. There are, however, none of mankind created to the specific task of tilling the ground, ” and a man there is not to serve the ground”.

Gen.2-7″And Jehovah God formeth the man — dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.”

The delineating differences which indicate the difference between this species of humankind, and the primordial gatherers have been previously set forth. This man, ‘adam’, is written with both the article (the) indicating THE man, and the particle ( ‘) indicating the MAN, combined; which, translates in sense to “THE MAN”.

This is an emphatic differentiation, completely unwarranted grammatically, less the existence of other men being contrasted.

This is also the introduction of a new concept of God in the creation account. The God of the ‘creation epoch’ is the plural Hebrew Elohim, therefore we find the deity declaring “Let us”. in Genesis 1. It is translated literally “The God’s” in English.

They ‘disappear’ temporarily during the Habitat portion of the epoch, then reappear at the conclusion to the Fall Epoch portion of the narrative, declaring, “now THE MAN has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil”.

In their absence we are introduced to the Tribal God of the Hebrews, in the Habitat Epoch portion of the account. He is “The Lord God, in contrast to the Elohim; and it is he who prepares the Habitat. It is he who now forms (not creates as in the primordial gatherer peoples) THE MAN, and places him in the Habitat, and commands his destiny, to cultivate; tend and keep, the Habitat, in stark contrast to his inferior fellows of humankind, the primordial gatherers.

Keep in mind that this account is the Hebrew Creation Myth. In keeping with this idea, we find the prime progenitor of them, THE MAN, is already differentiated from other men, and with a very ‘upscale’ difference. Created separately, individually, and with superior endowments (assumed in the purposeful aspect of his origin, to cultivate)

The Habitat Epoch portion of the Genesis account tells further of the Habitat, it’s location, and it’s vegetation, among which we find, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge concerning good and evil.
One of the more strikingly Jewish aspects of it’s writing is humorously injected, for no apparent reason, into the account. In describing the geographic location of the Habitat, we find a sudden and superfluous departure into fancy, unless one is a Jew, then it’s a real attention grabber; “And a river is going out from Eden to water the garden, and from thence it is parted, and hath become four chief [rivers]; the name of the one [is] Pison, it [is] that which is surrounding the whole land of the Havilah where the gold [is], and the gold of that land [is] good,”

Our subject, Adam, THE MAN, the father of the Adamic peoples, subsequently, the Jews, endures an undocumented; but, of necessity for his activities in tending the Habitat and naming all of the domestic animals, extended solitude.

Eventually the Tribal Deity who ‘formed’ him concludes THE MAN’s loneliness, by providing him with a female cloned version of himself.

THE MAN names her Eve; and she proves to be a thorn in his side, from which she originated, but that’s another Epoch in the Hebrew creation myth all together.

5. Conclusion :

My purpose here in is neither to give credence to, nor cast doubt upon the Hebrew Creation Myth. It is rather, to explain what some portion of it ‘SAYS’.

It was gotten through painstaking research into an unfamiliar language, using new tools. It clearly shows that in the original manuscripts there were two species of humans created according to it. The first were primordial gatherers, the second, from which the Jews descend, were a higher order of ‘cultivators’.

Understand that the Genesis creation narrative is the delineation of the origin of the Jewish race. It starts with the telling of the primal creation, and the introduction to the primordial gatherers. It proceeds onto the creation of the higher species of human, the Adamic race. It purports to tell of the different ‘strains’ of the Adamic race partially, then goes into sharp focus upon one family of this race. As such it is the introduction to the Hebrew history contained in the subsequent Hebrew writings.

The creation narrative is purported to have been first written down by the Hebrew Israelite Levite Moses, some 2,500 years after the occurrence of the events it portrays.

It should be noted from the understanding of what the creation epic says, that the idea of racial superiority blatantly espoused by Jews, finds it’s source in the very first instance of their creation myth.